Milliseconds count. Maybe not to your stock tips, but trust me as someone who has spent about a decade in this kind of environment now - sub-millisecond latencies certainly count in automated trading between investment banks/hedge funds/whatever. To the point where people are prepared to pay fortunes to have their machines located physically closer to an exchange.
A more logical reason would be to reduce the possible traffic issues.
If I'm sitting on the network with a 100Mb/s connection straight to the server... that's an entirely different scenario than sitting on the other side of the world hooked in through the Internet.
First off, the chance of a dropped packet (and delay in re-transmitting) is a magnitude smaller when I'm on the network.
So looking to shave a micro-second/milli-second off of a packet isn't that important or realistic. Humans do NOT make decisions that fast. You'd do better improving the speed of your code or throwing faster hardware at it.
Since Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop (yes they do, the court ruled so) there isn't much in the way of options.
#1. Develop your own system, keep it proprietary and hope that Microsoft doesn't see enough value in taking it from you.
#2. Support Microsoft's system and hope you can:
2a. compete with everyone else doing the same
2b. make enough profit to survive, but not enough so that Microsoft moves into the market itself.
#3. Go Open Source / Free Software and try to get your system enough marketshare that you can turn a profit, somehow.
#4. Give up on the computer industry and close your shop.
Sun has realized that #3 is the only option short of just giving up. At least they have something marketable - their expertise in the systems that they designed and that they built.
Microsoft might become an even larger influence on Linux than it is today. What if, for example, Microsoft decided to plop a new GUI atop the Linux kernel and enter the fray with its own version of Linux? The company has never been shy about copying success demonstrated elsewhere, and Apple has done very well doing exactly that with BSD.
This is another useless article about "what if" without any thought about the fundamentals of Linux.
As you pointed out, "they'll always have to release the source code". That is what makes Linux different. That is why companies like IBM can support Linux. They will NEVER be marginalized or excluded.
It's all about commodity. About making the OS a commodity. Owned by everyone.
When you had to walk into a bank to empty someone's bank account, you were limited by how far you could travel.
Now, when you can do it across the 'Web, you are not limited in the same way.
The problem is that the security model has not kept pace with the concept of "web services" offered by the banks. But if the banks were 100% liable for any loss, you'd see them focusing on the security.
Then on September 11, Microsoft added Storm detection (Microsoft's name for Storm's components is Win32/Nuwar) into its Malicious Software Removal tool, which ships with every Windows system. Overnight, Storm infections dropped by another 20 percent.
Anyone have any info on whether Microsoft's tool would detect it earlier?
But there is a group of people who THINK that they can ride on the scammer's pump-n-dump scheme and make some money on the up-side of the pump.
These are the people who know it's wrong and don't have the guts themselves to run a stock scam... but feel okay about trying to make some money off of one.
The powers that be can do thier survelience, then after it has been done and while they are acting on that information go to a court and say "Hey, we spied on these people, here's why and here's why we couldn't wait to ask you before we did it; do you think that we were right to do so?"
And they can even have one team do the surveillance and a DIFFERENT team file the paperwork and handle the FISA court stuff.
You know, I'd have a BIT more regard for their cause if they had a trailer parked in front of the FISA Court's office, packed with people busily filing the paperwork that they claim cannot be done in time.
If they were demanding more people to handle the workload...
If they were demanding secure offices closer to the court...
I'm not seeing any of that. NOTHING indicates ANY problem with the process. Just that they do not want to follow the process.
Translation: In a Democrat controlled congress the Democrats could not convince their own people to reject this bill. Thus the bill passed with the help of some Democrats voting for this bill.
In a Democrat controlled Congress, the Republicans can still use "soft of terrorism" to get certain Democrats to vote however they want them to.
"There is absolutely no reason our intelligence officials should have to consult government lawyers before listening into terrorist communications with the likes of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and other foreign terror groups," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
Of course not. That would be stupid.
That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.
It's called "checks and balances". It was a key point in the founding of our government. It WAS a key point. And it was agreed to by people who had put their own lives on the line when they signed our Declaration of Independence.
There's more risk of corrupt officials using this to further their own agendas than there is that it will stop any terrorist.
I'm arguing the lack of logic in claiming that some fictional entity ("the marketplace") can provide protection in one instance... but not in other instances.
So that certain instances require legal regulation.
But the fictional entity is used to justify the lack of legal regulation in the other instance.
However, the current version of the bill, Schwarzenegger said, "attempts to legislate in an area where the marketplace has already assigned responsibilities and liabilities that provide for the protection of consumers.
So...... prostitution and drugs should not be illegal because the "marketplace" can handle the problems?
What you saw is a perfect example of why LEGAL restrictions are needed. If it is LEGAL for a business to print out such information, then it WILL be stolen, eventually.
With the increase in "identity theft" it should be apparent to anyone that the "marketplace" is not capable of regulating itself.
All a "marketplace" does is ensure that those with the most power KEEP the most power. And right now that is not the credit consumer.
Incorrect. You only need to all agree to vote for issue X. That's it.
For example, how much overlap is there between pro-choice and pro-copyright-reform? Anti-war-on-drugs and pro-death-penalty? Pro-gun and anti-war-in-iraq?
Who cares?
And you've missed the point. This is not about "anti" anything. Once you get into "anti-" you've lost and you're back at "pandering".
And politicans aren't one-issue candidates. They can mix and match their issue orientations as they see fit.
Yes, they can. And your bloc will not vote for them then.
It's really that simple. You bloc votes for the candidate that will support what you support. If the candidate does not, then you IMMEDIATELY switch to a different candidate.
Preferably to their own convictions, yes, but let's face it: it's primarily a function based on to whom they are indebted.
I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand politics at all.
Yes, corporations try to buy politicians. And the politicians use that money to try to buy votes. They do this by buying commercial time on local stations.
If your bloc cannot be bought, then you've broken that system. You represent the power, not the corporations.
I mean, it looks good on paper and all but a candidate needs to evaluated as a whole and not as a one-issue make-or-break, or else your bloc is a lump-of-votes to whom he can simply promise things with a snarky one-liner.
There is something about this "voting" that you do not grasp.
If the politician does not deliver the vote, then the bloc will support a different candidate in the next election....a different candidate....in the next election.
The elected official that did not deliver the vote will lose the next election and be replaced by someone else.
I don't know if I can make that any clearer for you. It's about voting and our election process. If you do not understand that then you will not understand the concept of a voting bloc.
Huh? The bloc can represent more than one issue? Then you sir, have a political party complete with your platform of ideals. I bid you good luck taking on the two in control, you'll definitely need it.
While a bloc can "represent more than one issue" that is not what I said.
That is what is known as a "straw man".
Try to address the points that I made. Or don't. All you're doing is making my case for me.
Nothing you post here will have any effect compared to a single hand-written letter that I send to my officials from Washington state. Which is why they vote, pretty much, the way I want them to vote.
You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still the facts and all your arguments are worthless.
The problem with using "peer review" in any non-technical field is that you end up with "group think". The most dominant personalities dominate the discussions.
With Linux, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. There's none of this "you wanted it to fail" bullshit.
In the social environments, everyone wants to lead the group. But no one wants to do the work.
It's about votes, not pandering.
on
Blog Action Day
·
· Score: 1
So, in other words, make change by starting a special interest group for politicans to pander towards.
If you like them blowing smoke up your ass, that's up to you.
Pandering is not the same as getting the person who shares your views elected. If the person in office does not vote the way you want them to, you MUST support a different candidate.
Pandering is where the politicians trot out boogeymen to get your votes. Gay marriage! Soft on Terror! Protect the children!
If you want X, then you vote for people who will vote for X.
You do NOT vote for the candidate who claims that the other candidate will do Y.
You vote for the candidate that will vote for X.
Corporations learned long ago how to get change. Pay for it. Campaign contributions and lobbyists. In addition to a bloc of voters, pass around a collection basket to get some green-backed persuaders.
You don't need to.
Corporations pay for candidates and the candidates use the money to run commercials about how great they are and how bad the other candidates are.
Why would your bloc care about how bad the other candidates are? Your bloc cannot be bought. Your bloc cannot be fooled. Your bloc will vote. In every election. As a bloc.
That is the way to change politics. Don't argue with me on/. You're just making my case for me. Ranting online does NOTHING.
Sending a single hand-written letter to one official will do more than all the rants posted on/. in the past 10 years.
Who is in your bloc? Have you written your elected officials to make your opinions crystal clear to him/her?
Get all of your friends together who have the same views that you do.
Agree to vote as a bloc. Every one of you will vote for the same candidate.
Then send a LETTER (no email, no "blog" posts) to your current elected officials to get them to vote the way you want them to.
If they do not agree, then research the other candidates and WRITE letters to them asking them to vote the way you want them to if your bloc will support them.
If you can get enough people who agree with you to vote in your bloc, you'll have the changes you want at the next election. If you don't have enough people, find out why the majority do NOT support your views.
Although each newer system does more... they've also improved the code so that it does so more efficiently. Or in the case of the tick-less kernel, other code has changed.
So, the question is: Do the improvements offset the additional features.
The answer is: Yes, to a degree. 7.10beta runs cooler and more efficiently than 7.04... but still uses more power than even earlier releases did.
So the next question is: How many of the new features can you shut off because you do not need them and how much of a power savings will you see then?
This guy is so bad that he wastes HOURS of other people's time on researching his speech.
So that would immediately call into question any of his decisions. He is not capable of determining whether ChaCha is better than Google (or better than just looking it up in the library yourself).
Obligatory car analogy - If you never drive a car, are you capable of saying Car A is better than Car B based solely upon how fast someone else can pick up your laundry in it?
He was impressed when IU's Ask a Librarian service found the quote, from former Harvard President James Bryant Conant, within hours. But a ChaCha guide got it in two minutes.
"Hours".
So he wasted at least TWO HOURS of someone's time looking up a quote? For a SPEECH? And then he asked a DIFFERENT person to look it up, also?
WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux).
WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.
WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux).
Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.
None of the major cast were killed off during the series except Tasha Yar.
In TOS, Nimoy was almost replaced because he was demanding something like $10,000 per episode in the 2nd season. In the end, he settled for something like $2,500 an episode.
Now, would they have killed off Spock or just replaced the actor?
Killing the characters in a story is one thing.
Losing the actors to contract disputes is something else. And actors can die in real life.
Losing an actor can be storied-over by killing their character in an episode. So there IS an element of uncertainty.
But with Star Trek Babies, there is no risk. Even if the actor is killed in real life, they writers CANNOT kill the character.
The problem with making a Star Trek Babies movie is that there is absolutely NO THREAT to any of the characters.
So what if baby Kirk is shot in the head causing him to fall into an erupting volcano at the moment the planet's sun goes nova?
It was all a dream sequence. Or it was a clone. Or a robot. Or the evil baby Kirk from the mirror dimension.
And the more characters you take from TOS, the less the threat is.
It's going to be like there's a HUGE TARGET painted on the one person on the bridge that isn't in TOS. And here is chief security office Ima Goingtodie.
Let's look at the possible scenarios that lead to "failure".
#1. Hardware dies. Only an idiot would blame this on Canonical/Ubuntu. If it's under warranty, Dell should be able to replace it.
#2. Software corruption. This would be Canonical's/Ubuntu's fault. But I've run their stuff for years without any problems. Why would there be problems now?
#3. Driver problem. Well, this is why you have these "partnerships" so the software vendor can work with the hardware vendor to solve these problems BEFORE you purchase their products.
#4. Stupid admin problem. Yeah, like there's anything Canonical or Dell can do to prevent that.
So, the only real potential problem looks like the exact thing that such a partnership would be designed to resolve. I'm not seeing the problem here.
Slashdot Mirror
A more logical reason would be to reduce the possible traffic issues.
If I'm sitting on the network with a 100Mb/s connection straight to the server
First off, the chance of a dropped packet (and delay in re-transmitting) is a magnitude smaller when I'm on the network.
So looking to shave a micro-second/milli-second off of a packet isn't that important or realistic. Humans do NOT make decisions that fast. You'd do better improving the speed of your code or throwing faster hardware at it.
Since Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop (yes they do, the court ruled so) there isn't much in the way of options.
#1. Develop your own system, keep it proprietary and hope that Microsoft doesn't see enough value in taking it from you.
#2. Support Microsoft's system and hope you can:
2a. compete with everyone else doing the same
2b. make enough profit to survive, but not enough so that Microsoft moves into the market itself.
#3. Go Open Source / Free Software and try to get your system enough marketshare that you can turn a profit, somehow.
#4. Give up on the computer industry and close your shop.
Sun has realized that #3 is the only option short of just giving up. At least they have something marketable - their expertise in the systems that they designed and that they built.
This is another useless article about "what if" without any thought about the fundamentals of Linux.
As you pointed out, "they'll always have to release the source code". That is what makes Linux different. That is why companies like IBM can support Linux. They will NEVER be marginalized or excluded.
It's all about commodity. About making the OS a commodity. Owned by everyone.
It only makes SOME crimes easier.
When you had to walk into a bank to empty someone's bank account, you were limited by how far you could travel.
Now, when you can do it across the 'Web, you are not limited in the same way.
The problem is that the security model has not kept pace with the concept of "web services" offered by the banks. But if the banks were 100% liable for any loss, you'd see them focusing on the security.
Anyone have any info on whether Microsoft's tool would detect it earlier?
I'm downloading:
7.10 server
7.10 i386 desktop
7.10 i386 alternate
7.10 amd64 desktop
7.10 amd64 alternate
7.10 Kubuntu
7.10 Xubuntu
All via bittorrent. And all being shared back. That's a LOT of LEGITIMATE bits.
But there is a group of people who THINK that they can ride on the scammer's pump-n-dump scheme and make some money on the up-side of the pump.
... but feel okay about trying to make some money off of one.
These are the people who know it's wrong and don't have the guts themselves to run a stock scam
I didn't say they were very smart.
And they can even have one team do the surveillance and a DIFFERENT team file the paperwork and handle the FISA court stuff.
You know, I'd have a BIT more regard for their cause if they had a trailer parked in front of the FISA Court's office, packed with people busily filing the paperwork that they claim cannot be done in time.
If they were demanding more people to handle the workload
If they were demanding secure offices closer to the court
I'm not seeing any of that. NOTHING indicates ANY problem with the process. Just that they do not want to follow the process.
In a Democrat controlled Congress, the Republicans can still use "soft of terrorism" to get certain Democrats to vote however they want them to.
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2007/trall071001.gif
and
http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-15-07Large.jpeg
Of course not. That would be stupid.
That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.
It's called "checks and balances". It was a key point in the founding of our government. It WAS a key point. And it was agreed to by people who had put their own lives on the line when they signed our Declaration of Independence.
There's more risk of corrupt officials using this to further their own agendas than there is that it will stop any terrorist.
The short story, not the movie. They're completely different. It covers exactly this situation.
Precog #1 sees the future.
Precog #2 sees the future that happens when you know what Precog #1 saw.
Precog #3 sees the future that happens when you know what Precog #2 saw which was the future that Precog #1 saw.
Buh bye sycophants.
I'm arguing the lack of logic in claiming that some fictional entity ("the marketplace") can provide protection in one instance ... but not in other instances.
So that certain instances require legal regulation.
But the fictional entity is used to justify the lack of legal regulation in the other instance.
So
What you saw is a perfect example of why LEGAL restrictions are needed. If it is LEGAL for a business to print out such information, then it WILL be stolen, eventually.
With the increase in "identity theft" it should be apparent to anyone that the "marketplace" is not capable of regulating itself.
All a "marketplace" does is ensure that those with the most power KEEP the most power. And right now that is not the credit consumer.
Incorrect. You only need to all agree to vote for issue X. That's it.
Who cares?
And you've missed the point. This is not about "anti" anything. Once you get into "anti-" you've lost and you're back at "pandering".
Yes, they can. And your bloc will not vote for them then.
It's really that simple. You bloc votes for the candidate that will support what you support. If the candidate does not, then you IMMEDIATELY switch to a different candidate.
I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand politics at all.
Yes, corporations try to buy politicians.
And the politicians use that money to try to buy votes. They do this by buying commercial time on local stations.
If your bloc cannot be bought, then you've broken that system. You represent the power, not the corporations.
There is something about this "voting" that you do not grasp.
If the politician does not deliver the vote, then the bloc will support a different candidate in the next election.
The elected official that did not deliver the vote will lose the next election and be replaced by someone else.
I don't know if I can make that any clearer for you. It's about voting and our election process. If you do not understand that then you will not understand the concept of a voting bloc.
While a bloc can "represent more than one issue" that is not what I said.
That is what is known as a "straw man".
Try to address the points that I made. Or don't. All you're doing is making my case for me.
Nothing you post here will have any effect compared to a single hand-written letter that I send to my officials from Washington state. Which is why they vote, pretty much, the way I want them to vote.
You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still the facts and all your arguments are worthless.
Enjoy your "blog day".
http://www.despair.com/meetings.html
The problem with using "peer review" in any non-technical field is that you end up with "group think". The most dominant personalities dominate the discussions.
With Linux, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. There's none of this "you wanted it to fail" bullshit.
In the social environments, everyone wants to lead the group. But no one wants to do the work.
If you like them blowing smoke up your ass, that's up to you.
Pandering is not the same as getting the person who shares your views elected. If the person in office does not vote the way you want them to, you MUST support a different candidate.
Pandering is where the politicians trot out boogeymen to get your votes. Gay marriage! Soft on Terror! Protect the children!
If you want X, then you vote for people who will vote for X.
You do NOT vote for the candidate who claims that the other candidate will do Y.
You vote for the candidate that will vote for X.
You don't need to.
Corporations pay for candidates and the candidates use the money to run commercials about how great they are and how bad the other candidates are.
Why would your bloc care about how bad the other candidates are? Your bloc cannot be bought. Your bloc cannot be fooled. Your bloc will vote. In every election. As a bloc.
That is the way to change politics. Don't argue with me on
Sending a single hand-written letter to one official will do more than all the rants posted on
Who is in your bloc? Have you written your elected officials to make your opinions crystal clear to him/her?
Get all of your friends together who have the same views that you do.
Agree to vote as a bloc. Every one of you will vote for the same candidate.
Then send a LETTER (no email, no "blog" posts) to your current elected officials to get them to vote the way you want them to.
If they do not agree, then research the other candidates and WRITE letters to them asking them to vote the way you want them to if your bloc will support them.
If you can get enough people who agree with you to vote in your bloc, you'll have the changes you want at the next election. If you don't have enough people, find out why the majority do NOT support your views.
Although each newer system does more ... they've also improved the code so that it does so more efficiently. Or in the case of the tick-less kernel, other code has changed.
... but still uses more power than even earlier releases did.
So, the question is: Do the improvements offset the additional features.
The answer is: Yes, to a degree. 7.10beta runs cooler and more efficiently than 7.04
So the next question is: How many of the new features can you shut off because you do not need them and how much of a power savings will you see then?
This guy is so bad that he wastes HOURS of other people's time on researching his speech.
So that would immediately call into question any of his decisions. He is not capable of determining whether ChaCha is better than Google (or better than just looking it up in the library yourself).
Obligatory car analogy -
If you never drive a car, are you capable of saying Car A is better than Car B based solely upon how fast someone else can pick up your laundry in it?
"Hours".
So he wasted at least TWO HOURS of someone's time looking up a quote? For a SPEECH? And then he asked a DIFFERENT person to look it up, also?
WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux).
WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.
WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux).
Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.
Which is why Microsoft extended WinXP for OEM's.
In TOS, Nimoy was almost replaced because he was demanding something like $10,000 per episode in the 2nd season. In the end, he settled for something like $2,500 an episode.
Now, would they have killed off Spock or just replaced the actor?
Killing the characters in a story is one thing.
Losing the actors to contract disputes is something else. And actors can die in real life.
Losing an actor can be storied-over by killing their character in an episode. So there IS an element of uncertainty.
But with Star Trek Babies, there is no risk. Even if the actor is killed in real life, they writers CANNOT kill the character.
The problem with making a Star Trek Babies movie is that there is absolutely NO THREAT to any of the characters.
So what if baby Kirk is shot in the head causing him to fall into an erupting volcano at the moment the planet's sun goes nova?
It was all a dream sequence. Or it was a clone. Or a robot. Or the evil baby Kirk from the mirror dimension.
And the more characters you take from TOS, the less the threat is.
It's going to be like there's a HUGE TARGET painted on the one person on the bridge that isn't in TOS. And here is chief security office Ima Goingtodie.
Let's look at the possible scenarios that lead to "failure".
#1. Hardware dies. Only an idiot would blame this on Canonical/Ubuntu. If it's under warranty, Dell should be able to replace it.
#2. Software corruption. This would be Canonical's/Ubuntu's fault. But I've run their stuff for years without any problems. Why would there be problems now?
#3. Driver problem. Well, this is why you have these "partnerships" so the software vendor can work with the hardware vendor to solve these problems BEFORE you purchase their products.
#4. Stupid admin problem. Yeah, like there's anything Canonical or Dell can do to prevent that.
So, the only real potential problem looks like the exact thing that such a partnership would be designed to resolve. I'm not seeing the problem here.